Explaining Organismal Complexity via theology sans predation

November 1, 2013 | James Kohl

Excerpt: Can anyone defending theology as an academic pursuit, direct me to actual discoveries or definable phenomena unearthed using it’s framework? Theology has a long history so surely there must be a large number of indisputable insights gleaned using it?

My comment: See Explaining Organismal Complexity with Non-Coding DNA by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

This is a one-page literature review that incorporates scientific truths learned from molecular epigenetics. It offers conclusions that can be contrasted with the snake-centric evolution of the human brain, which has been neuroscientifically linked to predation in our monkey ancestors via brain imaging. See, for example, Carl Zimmer’s NY Times article: Afraid of Snakes? Your Pulvinar May Be to Blame.

If not for Tomkins’ theological perspective, which incorporates biological facts, we would need to rely on science journalists like Zimmer for interpretations of new findings that are obviously ridiculous but commonly used to support what’s being taught in schools as mutation-initiated natural selection. To his credit, however, Zimmer also reported that some evolutionary theorists are trying to remove the laws of physics from discussion of adaptive evolution via natural selection. He wrote: “Scientists are exploring how organisms can evolve elaborate structures without Darwinian selection. Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens.”

To some extent, the complexity of our eyes and the complexity of the human brain and our behavior is due to predatory snakes, since otherwise the complexity just happens. Thus, there is an obvious reason for the change from natural selection that enables organismal complexity to organismal complexity that just happens.  It’s because no experimental evidence has ever suggested how random mutations might be selected except via predatory natural selection. Now, since there is no evidence that random mutations are fixed in the genome of any species that has adaptively evolved (e.g., from monkeys to humans), natural selection must be dismissed. The only other option is ridiculous. Organismal complexity must continue to be attributed to bird predation in butterflies and extended to snake predation in humans. Therefore, the evolution of organismal complexity “…just happens.”

People are beginning to realize how much nonsense they’ve been taught about what happens without being taught about how it happens. No intelligent evolutionary theorist is going to continue to tout the idea of snake predation as the driving force behind mutation-driven evolution sans natural selection, because most people will not accept that theory.  Indeed, many of the theorists who consider themselves to be highly intelligent have frequently criticized Creationists in their reports of Creationist’s belief in Biblical Genesis. The Holy Bible, for example, includes an important role played by a serpent (e.g., a snake). At least a few theorists can see how their criticisms have returned to bite them in the butt as would a predatory snake when given the opportunity to do so.   Thus, it may be time to consider the scientific perspective of theologians in the context of the nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists. Alternatively, you could wait for a better explanation of how adaptive evolution of organismal complexity occurs via random mutations without natural selection for anything whatsoever.

 

Comments

comments

James Vaughn Kohl

James Vaughn Kohl

James Vaughn Kohl was the first to accurately conceptualize human pheromones, and began presenting his findings to the scientific community in 1992. He continues to present to, and publish for, diverse scientific and lay audiences, while constantly monitoring the scientific presses for new information that is relevant to the development of his initial and ongoing conceptualization of human pheromones.